This is a question that all who love their country should ask themselves, for upon the answer depends not only the existence of the Empire, but also the very continuance of the British race as one of the dominant peoples of the world.

The writer of this article, whilst recognizing that the "grit" of our forefathers (to use an expressive and well understood, though perhaps not strictly classical, word) is to be found in its full strength and vigor amongst large numbers of our people, doubts whether it permeates the entire mass of the population in anything like the proportion it did, say, a hundred years ago. The writer understands by the word "grit" that virile spirit which makes light of pain and physical discomfort, and rejoices in the consciousness of victory over adverse circumstances, and which regards the performance of duty, however difficult and distasteful, as one of the supreme virtues of all true men and women. Having expressed this doubt, he will endeavor to justify it by pointing out some of the signs which appear to him indicative of a decadent spirit and of a lack of virility amongst portions of all classes of the community.

Let us give in this matter, as is right, due precedence to the ladies.

The deeds of former generations of British men and women, patent to all who read history, render it unnecessary to argue the possession by our ancestors of this virile spirit.

Do our women of the present day carry on the noble traditions of their forerunners in this respect? The word "duty" was as sacred to our grandmothers as it was to our grandfathers.

Duty demanded of a woman in former days that she should subordinate her own inclinations to those of her

parents and of her husband, and that in her conduct she should consider the interests of the State. She was taught that her first duty in life was to marry, and produce children who should carry on worthily the traditions of the family and of the race to which she belonged. Whilst unmarried she was trained in the virtues of obedience, respect for authority, endurance, and diligence in the prosecution of all household and domestic duties. She was expected to prepare herself for the married state. When married, honor demanded that she should face the obligations of the marriage tie and the sufferings and dangers of childbirth (ten times greater in her days than in ours) with as much coolness and courage as was expected of the man on the field of battle or in the presence of deadly peril.

Society was merciless to those of either sex who failed in the exhibition of courage in the face of their respective duties.

What is the attitude of some of the women of to-day towards these special duties and obligations of their sex? Is it not a fact that amongst the richer classes, at all events, some girls decline to marry unless their suitors are in a position to supply them with luxuries unheard of by their mothers? And have we not heard of girls marrying a man for his money, or his position, and then refusing to live with him?— an act of cold-blooded treachery and of heartless cruelty, which society should punish by a stern ostracism of the offender.

We know that the birth-rate is diminishing year by year. Does not this mean that women are showing the white feather, and are shirking one of the principal duties of their sex? Again, are the present generation of mothers

to be found as often in the nursery and in the schoolroom as their ancestors? I think not. The general complaint is that amongst the richer mothers the children are more and more being left to the care of governesses and

nurses.

The desire for pleasure and for personal ease seems to have taken firm hold of the minds of many well-todo women, and to have driven out the maternal instincts. I do not say that the women of to-day are altogether lacking in physical or moral courage. To gratify her ambitions in the world of sport, or of society, the modern woman not infrequently displays a fine quality of endurance and great tenacity of purpose. The question is, Do the majority of the women of our nation exercise these same virtues of self-control and discipline in the performance of daily duties, both great and small? The middle-class woman apes her fashionable sister. In former days the wife of the professional man took an active, personal, intelligent part in the management of her home. She was to be found in the kitchen, as well as in the nursery; she was careful of her husband's money, and did not attempt to vie with her social superiors. Now all this is altered. She must run in the same race as her fashionable sister, with perhaps only a tenth part of the latter's income, to the financial ruin of her hsuband and of his professional prospects. Not infrequently the husband also, imbued with the theory that "nothing succeeds like success," urges her to keep up the level of socalled smartness and style, in order to maintain the impression of his professional prosperity, and because he too enjoys the luxuries of good living, costly dressing, and frequent social pleasures.

The ever-increasing body of professional and of working women is perhaps less exposed to the dangers engendered by easy and sheltered living, but

even amongst a certain class of these there is a tendency to shirk any training which entails long and concentrated effort, and a happy-go-lucky impression prevails in some minds that general adaptability and native wit will enable them to seize the chances of life and steer themselves into a haven of comparative prosperity. The instability of much women's work, and the constant creation, through the whims of fashion and other causes, of new occupations, tend to develop a habit of lightly disregarding the performance of monotonous duties; while the demands made by class custom upon many professional women for extravagant dressing, and for the acquisition of the latest social accomplishment, create a love of luxury, of excitement, and of constant change, that seriously militates against the development of the more stable traits of character.

Let us descend again in the female social world.

Has not the modern domestic caught the fever of an easy life and of equality of condition? Is she to-day as solicitious of her employer's interest, as hardworking, as skilled in her profession, and as proud of it as the servant of former days?

Without being a pessimist I fear the answer to these questions cannot be truthfully given in the affirmative.

If there be some grain of truth in what I have said, is there not reason to inquire why the women of to-day take a less serious view of their duties than did those of former generations?

Let us now consider briefly the case of the men, and the attitude assumed by them in regard to duty. Do they possess the same measure of "grit" as their forefathers?

The writer desires to make no sweeping generalizations. He proudly acknowledges the splendid qualities of courage and of endurance displayed within recent years by large numbers

of Britons, both in peace and in war. He fully recognizes the heroic deeds of our soldiers, of our sailors, in action, and of our civilians in times of accident and of peril to life; nevertheless, he would ask whether it is not a fact that surrenders to the enemy without serious loss of life took place during the Boer war more frequently than it is agreeable to the patriot to hear about? In previous wars, when surrenders occurred, they were almost invariably in accordance with superior orders and after such serious loss of life as showed that ultimate success was a practicable impossibility. But in the Boer war some British soldiers are reported to have thrown down their arms without orders, and this on more than one occasion; and it is even said that a great surrender took place owing to a junior officer having raised the white flag without instructions. I do not like to dwell on this subject, as it may seem to cast a slur-which is the last thing I should desire to do-on an Army which I firmly believe to be still the equal in courage of any in the world.

Let us turn to the civil side of life. It may be argued that our supremacy in the Olympic Games is sufficient proof of the healthy condition of our national qualities of pluck and endurance. I do not regard this as sufficient proof. The excellent results achieved by a few selected experts, who are subjected to long and severe training, is no guarantee that there is a high standard of physical efficiency and of courage among the people as a whole. Even in this realm of sport, dear as it is to the heart of the nation, there is an increasng tendency, among both rich and poor, to enjoy it as a spectacle rather than to take an active part in it, and there are large numbers of men who are far readier to criticize the "form" of some notable footballer or cricketer than they are to submit themselves to even the mild severities

of amateur training, or to take the rough and tumble of the game itself.

The writer is fully aware that large numbers of men are laboring steadily and honestly in their respective spheres for small and often most inadequate pittances without grumbling, content as long as they can worthily perform the tasks which duty demands of them; but is this the usual attitude of men towards the work of their lives? and do our men compare favorably in this respect with those of some other nations, such as the German and the Scandinavian?

The average Englishman is often too phlegmatic and heavy of brain to forecast the future with any detail. He is content to trust to inherited instincts of pluck and resource to pull him through all difficulties and adverse circumstances. He forgets that these same instincts of pluck and of resource were only developed in our forefathers by the hard and strenuous conditions of their daily lives, conditions which enforced the continual, not the occasional, use of these qualities.

The national and individual successes of former times, of which we are so proud to-day, were won by the unrelaxing "grip" which our ancestors, as a rule, kept on themselves in the performance of duty; and this was combined with an ever-watchful outlook on the future, and a foresight which was largely the result of the stern discipline of the day, which never failed to visit with instant and condign punishment any dereliction of duty, or even innocent failure in the execution of superior orders. We are justly proud of the victories of Nelson, but how many of us know or realize that he was constantly and untiringly, in all spare hours, preparing himself and his captains for every possible contingency of naval warfare? The battle of the Nile was mentally won before ever it took place, yet most Englishmen attribute

it to the brilliant genius of the moment. Pluck and quick-wittedness are invaluable national assets, but they cannot be maintained without frequent daily use, much less can they be retained at that high level of perfection at which we are wont to estimate them if their use be relegated solely to the emergencies of life.

The German works longer hours, takes fewer holidays, and often spends his leisure in perfecting himself in his business, with the result that he is cutting out our men in many spheres of life. Whilst the young Englishman's head is filled with thoughts of sport, and that far too often from the point of view of the spectator rather than of a participant, the German is gaining knowledge which will avail to advance him in his profession. The waste places of the earth used formerly to be colonized by the Briton; now he finds the labor of subduing nature too severe for his enfeebled energies, and settles in the towns, leaving the healthgiving tillage of the virgin soil of new countries to the hardier races, whose minds and muscles have been strengthened by discipline and who recognize the nobility attached to strenuous labor.

Labor in the present day is a thing to be avoided-not to be proud of. It is a disagreeable necessity, which must be made as short and as easy as possible, compatible with the earning of the daily bread-and-butter.

The substitution of the limited company for the old-fashioned private business tends to make men less conscientious in regard to the service they give to their firm of employers. The managing director of a company is not so severe a taskmaster as the head of a private firm-he has not so much at stake, either financially or in the matter of commercial reputation; and neither is there the same incentive to work hard for the benefit of an impersonal body of shareholders as there

is for an individual master. Hence the feeling arises that it is sufficient if just enough attention be given to business to prevent the possibility of dismissal, and that nothing more can be demanded. Surely this is a deplorable attitude of mind, and one far removed from the mental "grit" of our forefathers, and incompatible with their stern regard for duty. Whilst other nations commence work at five and six o'clock in the morning, and even earlier in summer, in the West End of London no business can be transacted before nine or ten in the morning. So engrained are our idle habits that, hopeless of being able to induce the present generation to change its hours, Parliament has, through one of its Committees, approved of a Bill to legalize the alteration of the clock on certain dates, so as to induce people to rise earlier than they are accustomed to do by making them believe that the hour is later than it really is. Can anything show more clearly than does the discussion of such a Bill how idleness has eaten into the bone of some portions of our people; for, of course, if of our own free will we chose to rise earlier in the morning, no legislation would be necessary.

No other nation maintains an army of paupers out of the enforced taxation of the industrious. No other State provides hotel accommodation gratis for those of its citizens who dislike work and prefer to roam from workhouse to workhouse and enjoy, at the expense of their hard-working neighbors, the delights of the country in the summer. With such facilities for idleness it is not astonishing that Great Britain can show a larger number of idle men living on the industry of others than any other country in the world. These men claim to be unemployed, but, as John Burns is reputed to have said-and he ought to know-"their one prayer on rising, if they ever pray, is